Selman Turk v The Legal Aid Agency

Where primary legislation defines a term and subordinate legislation uses it, the defined meaning applies unless a contrary intention appears. Civil contempt proceedings are “criminal proceedings” for the purposes of the legal-aid scheme because they involve determination of a criminal charge for Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They therefore constitute “relevant proceedings” under Regulation 2 of the Recovery Regulations when brought in the High Court. The court has jurisdiction, and generally a duty, to make a recovery of defence costs order. Differences between acquitted Crown Court defendants and civil-contempt defendants, including means testing, costs recovery and hardship safeguards, do not create sufficient anomaly to displace the plain meaning.

Mr Turk was the defendant in civil contempt proceedings arising from alleged breaches of a freezing order. He was found in contempt and sentenced to imprisonment. He was entitled as of right to criminal legal aid, and the Legal Aid Agency sought a recovery of defence costs order at the conclusion of the proceedings.

In [2025] EWHC 841 (Ch), the High Court held that it had jurisdiction to make the order and required Mr Turk to pay the full representation costs. The appeal concerned whether “criminal proceedings before any court other than the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court” in Regulation 2 included civil contempt proceedings in the High Court.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Zacaroli gave the leading judgment, with Lord Justices Jeremy Baker and Bean agreeing.

1. Classification of the proceedings. Although civil contempt proceedings are civil in nature, they involve determination of a criminal charge for Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They are therefore criminal proceedings under section 14(h) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, as expanded by Regulation 9(v) of the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013. The court noted the approach in The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Ltd v McKay, [2019] EWHC 3065 (QB), and King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council v Bunning, [2013] EWHC 3390 (QB).
2. Construction of Regulation 2. Section 11 of the Interpretation Act 1978 supports giving expressions in subordinate legislation the meaning they bear in the enabling Act unless a contrary intention appears. The phrase in Regulation 2 consequently includes High Court civil contempt proceedings. Regulation 5 of the Criminal Legal Aid (Recovery of Defence Costs Orders) Regulations 2013 imposes the relevant duty, subject to the specified safeguards.
3. Alleged anomalies. The different treatment of acquitted Crown Court defendants does not establish a contrary intention. Crown Court legal aid is means-tested, whereas civil-contempt defendants receive legal aid without means testing. In civil contempt proceedings, the court can order only a reasonable proportion of costs, can avoid undue hardship, and a successful defendant will generally be able to seek costs from the unsuccessful applicant. The statutory scheme is therefore coherent.
4. Historical context and drafting correction. The pre-existing 2001 regime and explanatory memorandum did not justify restricting the plain meaning of Regulation 2. LASPO materially changed the position by bringing civil contempt proceedings within criminal legal aid. The principles in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution, [2000] 1 WLR 586, required identification of the substance of any proposed correction, but this was not the court’s fundamental reason for rejecting the appeal.

The High Court had jurisdiction to make the recovery of defence costs order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court had jurisdiction to make a recovery of defence costs order under the 2013 Recovery Regulations.
• High Court (Chancery Division), in [2025] EWHC 841 (Ch), held that it had jurisdiction and ordered payment of £392,823.70 to the Legal Aid Agency.